• MonfortS26
    119
    Emotions are at the core of every human interaction and play a big part in what makes us individuals. Logic and intuition are tools for that emotional human being to use. Logic is a set of rules that humans have come up that have proven to be successful and are effective in the real world. Intuition is a process that is refined subconsciously through experiences. The evolutionary purpose of both logic and intuition is to satisfy the emotions.
  • Rich
    413
    Understanding your point of view, I would suggest another.

    That human beings fundamental purpose is to experiment and learn. By learning they evolve. Intuition is the creative impulse that allows for change in direction (otherwise we become creatures of habit). Logic is one of those learned tools that we use to learn further. Emotions are like signs on a road, pointing is to me directions or hazards ahead!

    On the form poll, I would put intuition (creativity) and emotions as far more fundamental and crucial than logic.
  • TheMadFool
    546
    The evolutionary purpose of both logic and intuition is to satisfy the emotions.MonfortS26

    Therein lies human weakness (if it is true).
  • Rich
    413


    I don't see emotions as a weakness. I see it as one of the necessary ingredients to create, explore, and learn. It is what makes life interesting.
  • TheMadFool
    546
    I don't see emotions as a weakness. I see it as one of the necessary ingredients to create, explore, and learn. It is what makes life interestingRich

    I agree with you; emotions do make life interesting. I was merely pointing out what is commonly thought of as detrimental effects on rational thinking.
  • Rich
    413


    I understand. Thank you for the clarification.
  • javra
    81
    The [...] purpose of both logic and intuition is to satisfy the emotions.MonfortS26

    The quote is reminiscent of David Hume’s view.

    Imo, emotions is an umbrella term for many, in some ways different, aspects of psyche. There are emotions you can be affected by without enactively being unified with (e.g. love/hate; like, having a romantic attraction to someone you as a conscious being would rather not have), there are emotions that are enactively present to us as conscious beings which prod us or pull us (desires) and are integral to intentions or motivation (these sometimes can consist of the former drives, e.g. love/hate), and then there are emotions that are enactively affective responses to stimuli (pain/pleasure and suffering/happiness … where the two are distinguished).

    I’ve for a long time held the belief that all emotions hold their own imbedded reasoning—though, obviously, more sub/unconscious than not—as can also be stated of intuitions. Envy, for example, has its reasoning of “I should have what I don’t have but the other does”; other emotions are harder to pinpoint. One’s conscience—e.g., to counterbalance feelings of envy—can in this sense itself be appraised as another emotion.

    Still, I agree. One cannot reason without some underlying emotion (in the broad sense previously outlined); however, one can hold emotions without actively reasoning.

    In similar enough manners to Hume's arguments, reasoning can then in part be appraised as an emotive means by which we endorse some emotions and veto others.

    For instance, what philosophy—however formal—can be pursued without emotions such as those of interest or curiosity?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.